| Reasons for the grade |
|---|
| clear and comprehensive data |
| the figures and panels were clear, everything was labelled well and easy to follow, good use of white space. the legend is comprehensive and easy to follow. A16 and A18 were labelled with distinct colors which made it easy to identify. |
| Clear to understand without reading the paper, nice diagrams, and figure legend. |
| A good colour scheme has been used and the white space has been used effectively. However, there is missing statistical analysis on some of the bars ((A18 - 107). |
| Overall graph is structured well. However there is a missed statistical analysis comparing A18 (107) in graph B. Graph G does not clarify what it’s trying to quantify. But the graph overall is appropriate. In terms of aesthetics, they used good colour schemes and it is easily recognisable. |
| The figure is well organised and structured and there is consistency with colour labelling for all the images. Good labelling of images across the figure and a good description of most things going on in every section of the figure helps the reader follow through and not get lost. |
| Distinct colours, good use of white space. Inclusion of both microscopy images and data quantification makes their data look more convincing. |
| clear bar chart; good color with gradient depths, making it more intuitive |
| I can understood most of the figure and the meaning of this |
| Because the figure and legend are scientifically accurate, clearly structured, and well explained, demonstrating a strong understanding of the experimental design and results interpretation. Minor improvements in abbreviation clarity are the only issue. |
| easy to understand, clear |
| It wasn’t very easy to understand, and I would need to read the paper in order to know what was the topic. The title wasn’t great as it told us the result and not just what the test was. |